Building Autonomy in Continual Improvement

Continual Improvement (Kaizen)

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. This is the final post in a series of six posts, in which I have tried to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be useful in your own problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This sixth and final post will summarize the analysis, say something about prioritizing counter-measures and conclude on the two questions. I will end the series with some words on how this can help you in your problem-solving efforts and your coaching of problem-solving teams.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This fifth post will again dive into the causal event chain, but now at the systemic level. And I will discuss the problem of people not adhering to the standard.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This fourth post will take us to the systemic level of our problem. I will further explore the concept of barriers and make the link to standards in Lean thinking. At this point in the logic, I will also introduce the problem of occurrence and the problem of non-detection.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This third post will dive into tracing back the causal event chain, introducing and applying concepts like causing events, the initial causing event, and the initial active cause.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This second post will introduce concepts like necessary condition, defensive and control barrier, and will apply these to our example.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. I have coached many problem-solving teams, and besides the sometimes superficial use of problem-solving tools, there have always been two questions that have slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. Based upon the way my mentors have trained and coached me in problem-solving, as well as a lot of self-education and practice, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof.(more…)

Lean can present itself in many ways. To some, Lean appears as a grassroots initiative and as bottom-up improvement by everyone, everywhere, anytime. Others experience Lean more as a top-down initiative, driven by management and accompanied by standards, audits and specialists. Indeed, Lean can be seen as a many-faced phenomenon; almost as if Lean has a Multiple Personality Disorder.

So, what is Lean’s true face? How do we explain Lean’s different personalities to the workforce?(more…)

Some time ago, 3M was in the news about the way they used “social networking” internally to generate new ideas. This electronic suggestion box generated an “impressive” 700 suggestions in only 2 weeks, according to news site cio.com. And of course, every suggestion is welcome, but I’d like to put the 3M efforts in a somewhat larger perspective. Then 700 ideas in 2 weeks means about 18,200 ideas per year. Now 3M has some 75,000 employees, so this implies 0.24 ideas per employee per year. So do we still think this is impressive? Furthermore, cio.com mentioned that the ideas were submitted by some 1,200 employees, so by 1.6% of all employees. Cio.com published the article to illustrate a “best practice” in employee involvement. Honestly, I’m not very impressed. Are you?(more…)

It seems to be popular these last years and more recently to explicitly state that Lean is not (only) about cost reduction or cost cutting. See the recent posts by Mark Graban or Matt Hrivnak. So let me be somewhat controversial in this post (which I think is allowed to spark the discussion) and drop a bombshell: I think Lean is about cost reduction.

Now I can’t of course argue with the interpretations that people may have when they read about cost reductions, and surely, generally it will have negative connotations. But it is interesting, still, to contrast these thoughts with the original ideas about what now is called Lean, by going back to what Toyota, Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo said and wrote about this topic in the period when the world first started learning about the Toyota Production System. Then when going back to the origins and the intent of the TPS, there clearly is strong focus on cost reduction. So how does this match up, one might wonder. A post trying to close the gap between cost reduction how it is often practiced, and understanding cost reduction as intended in Lean.(more…)

Meanwhile many organizations have started with Lean. Especially standing in front of a whiteboard with performance data seems to be the hottest thing in town nowadays. The thing that bothers me in these daily huddles or stand-up meetings is that the data often comes from outside the team. I then tell them there is a reason that is is called “report out”. But what I witness more often resembles a “report in”, whereby the data is supplied by the team lead or some support department. Almost as if someone else will come in during half time, and tell the sports team what the score is. Not really my idea of an autonomous team. As a result, time is often wasted on discussions about definitions, consolidation rules and interpretations instead of focusing on opportunities for improvement. It is time for a change.(more…)